Approximately 7 million people or 3.2% of all adults in North America are on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole. Billions of taxpayer dollars continue to be spent on prison construction each year, yet an estimated 3.8 million offenders are put on probation and another 400,000 individuals are released on parole from state and federal prisons and returned to the community each year. The enormous growth of the probation and parole population has outpaced available resources, and caseloads have expanded to unmanageable proportions. Many jurisdictions have instituted community-based alternatives to incarceration such as house arrest or electronic monitoring.
Electronic monitoring is an automated method of determining compliance with home confinement restrictions through the use of electronic devices. The most popular form of electronic monitoring uses a radio frequency (“RF”) communication system; whereby a transmitter is attached to the offender's ankle and a corresponding receiver is placed in the offender's home. The receiver is attached to the offender's telephone line and sends information to a central computer station. The transmitter on the offender's ankle continuously signals the receiver and has a predetermined range. If the offender exceeds that range or tampers with the equipment, the receiver calls the central computer station; an alarm is generated; and the authorities are notified.
RF communication systems only monitor the presence or absence of the offender at their residence. Furthermore, the central computer can be programmed for scheduled away times or “leaves” to allow the offender to go to work, attend school or counseling, or run errands such as grocery shopping. During these away times, the offender is not being monitored. As probation and parole agencies are forced to accept higher risk offenders from the overburdened corrections system, there is a desire for electronic monitoring systems that provide more information and accountability to maintain public safety.
In the mid-1990's companies began developing and testing electronic monitoring equipment having global positioning system (“GPS”) capability. As with any new technology application, early GPS units were cumbersome and unreliable. Today, three companies have emerged with viable GPS units; however, there are still shortcomings that have limited their acceptance.
Known GPS units often use a two-piece system consisting of an RF transmitter attached to the offender's ankle and a tracking unit that the offender must carry with them while away from home. The transmitter electronically tethers the offender to the tracking unit and generally has a range of between 10 and 30 feet. There are two types of GPS tracking units: active and passive. Active GPS tracking units automatically determine their location and call their location in to a central computer station at regular intervals. In addition, any violations such as tampering with the equipment or violating an inclusion or exclusion zone rule (Geo-fencing) are called in immediately; and the unit can also be polled to obtain up to the minute information. A cellular communications link is used by these units, which requires that the active GPS units be in an area with good cellular coverage. Passive GPS units store all the information they obtain, including any violations. When the offender returns home, the passive GPS unit is placed in a docking station connected to a telephone line and information from the passive GPS unit is downloaded to the central computer station.
Current active GPS units are expensive, require good cellular coverage and frequent battery charging, whereas passive units do not give real time information, which minimizes their effectiveness in providing offender accountability and appropriate public safety.
All of the currently available electronic monitoring products and services (including GPS-based) are proprietary systems. The ankle band transmitter, the receiver or tracking device, central monitoring computer and software have all been specially designed at great expense. This cost must be recouped in the price of the equipment and service. In addition, such proprietary systems limit the innovation and technological advances that may be later integrated. Any changes and improvements require a substantial development cost that must be amortized over a relatively long period of time. Therefore, much of the equipment currently in use is either very expensive, uses old technology or both.
Therefore, there is a need for an improved tracking system that does not have the above-described disadvantages.